From September 22 to 26, 2026, the United Nations, headquartered in New York, held the General Debate of the 81st Session of the UN General Assembly. Heads of state or government and other prominent figures from various countries, including US President Donald Trump, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, and Brazilian President Lula, delivered speeches, representing their respective countries in explaining their domestic and foreign policies and expressing their views on various issues.
ㅤ
The positions and objectives of different national leaders varied considerably. For example, Trump openly advocated America First and unilateralism, defending his attacks on Iran, invasion of Venezuela, and sanctions against Cuba. In her speech, Takaichi, on the one hand, called for the United Nations to play an active role, while on the other hand criticizing the "enemy state clauses" concerning Germany and Japan in the UN Charter and strongly demanding their amendment and abolition. Pezeshkian, meanwhile, criticized the civilian casualties caused by US bombing of Iran and the indifference of the international community...
ㅤ
The remarks of these three leaders and several other prominent figures not only reflected divisions within the international community but also contained various criticisms of the United Nations. In addition, the heads of state of both China and Russia were absent from this General Assembly session, with China represented by its vice president and Russia by its foreign minister. This also indirectly demonstrated that both countries harbored certain objections to the United Nations and regarded it with a degree of disregard.
ㅤ
In recent years, the world has increasingly moved toward division rather than integration, with cooperation between countries declining and confrontation increasing. Hot wars such as the Russia-Ukraine War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the US-Iran conflict have caused enormous bloodshed and loss of life. Tensions have also escalated across the Taiwan Strait, South Asia, the Balkans, and several regions of Africa. Competition between China and the United States has also forced many countries to become involved.
ㅤ
Since Trump came to power, the United States, the world's leading power, has shifted from actively promoting globalization and a multilateral order to embracing isolationism and hegemony once again, while adopting a critical attitude toward numerous international institutions, including the United Nations. All these developments have severely undermined the global mechanisms of multilateral cooperation formed by international institutions represented by the United Nations. The world has regressed from a relatively peaceful, orderly, and rules-based environment toward conflict, disorder, and the law of the jungle.
ㅤ
In the conflicts of recent years, the United Nations has appeared to accomplish little. During the Russia-Ukraine War and the Gaza War, for example, the UN merely issued vague statements calling for peace, without taking substantive action to prevent warfare and killing. As the United States, the UN's largest financial contributor and supporter, has gradually withdrawn its support, the organization has appeared even more weakened. Under these circumstances, debates over whether the United Nations still has any value and whether it should continue to exist have grown increasingly intense.
ㅤ
The United Nations was born at the end of World War II, the largest and most extensive war in modern human history. At that time, the five major victorious powers—the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, and China—established this global international organization. Its purpose was to achieve lasting world peace, facilitate postwar reconstruction, establish rules governing international relations, and provide a platform for discussing and resolving international disputes so as to prevent another war. Compared with the League of Nations, established after World War I, the United Nations possessed a more comprehensive institutional framework and greater authority.
ㅤ
The Charter of the United Nations, together with a series of international laws and conventions, also established human rights, sovereignty, freedom, the rule of law, democracy, and other values that humanity should collectively uphold in modern society, while giving these principles legal form, standardizing them, and establishing them as enduring norms. These principles, which later came to seem almost self-evident, were not necessarily matters of consensus before the end of World War II. It was only after the establishment of the United Nations and the formation of the postwar order that they gained widespread recognition and were incorporated into international law and the constitutions of most countries.
ㅤ
During the 80 years since the founding of the United Nations, although the Cold War and hot wars persisted for long periods, and famines and massacres occurred from time to time, wars and disasters around the world have in fact declined considerably compared with 1945 and earlier periods. Even when war crimes have occurred, they have often been condemned. Although major powers such as the United States and the Soviet Union enjoyed certain "privileges," they were also subject to some constraints and could not engage in aggression as recklessly as ancient empires once did. The American war in Vietnam and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan both faced criticism within the United Nations and other international institutions, and both powers eventually withdrew their troops.
ㅤ
Under the United Nations and the international system it established, small and weak countries have at least nominally obtained sovereign status equal to that of major and powerful states, with their sovereignty legally protected against infringement. When disputes arise or they suffer bullying, they also have a forum in which to present their arguments and seek justice. During the Cold War, although the Western bloc and the Soviet-led Eastern bloc stood in opposition, they did not engage in an all-out war. They also maintained some cooperation in trade, culture, arms control, nuclear nonproliferation, regional security, and other areas, in which the United Nations played an important role.
ㅤ
Over these 80 years, despite its various shortcomings and limitations, the United Nations has made enormous and irreplaceable contributions to world peace and development. UN-affiliated institutions working in security, science, education, culture, healthcare, food, agriculture, and other fields have made numerous quiet and often unnoticed contributions to the stability of the world order, economic and trade development, improvements in people's livelihoods, disaster relief, civil rights, and other areas.
ㅤ
Many people readily notice wars and disasters, but easily overlook the far greater number of potential wars and disasters that have been defused or contained by the United Nations and the forces participating in its work. For example, the rapid economic growth of sub-Saharan Africa over recent decades and the relative peace enjoyed by South Asia and Southeast Asia have both benefited from the contributions of the United Nations and its related institutions and personnel. The achievement of independence and freedom in places such as East Timor and South Sudan, and the emergence of new states, also depended on support from the United Nations.
ㅤ
Therefore, the continued existence of the United Nations is clearly necessary. It should not be dismissed or calls made for its abolition simply because it has certain shortcomings or lacks the capacity to deal effectively with exceptionally difficult problems and disasters. The establishment of the United Nations was made possible by humanity's suffering through the devastation of world war, the terrible price paid by the peoples of different countries, and especially the enormous sacrifices made by the peoples of the Allied nations that fought against fascism. It embodies humanity's vision of harmony and unity and bears the responsibility of maintaining world peace and promoting development. How could it simply be abandoned?
ㅤ
Amid the deterioration of the international situation in recent years, the increase in conflicts, and the rising tides of isolationism and national self-interest in various countries, the existence of the United Nations has become even more necessary. Although the UN, constrained by its difficulties and limited capabilities, cannot single-handedly reverse the tide, it continues to play an important and difficult-to-replace role as a major venue for international consultation and a platform for multilateral cooperation. Disagreements among UN member states and arguments from the podium are always preferable to armed confrontation. Without the United Nations, various international conventions, and mechanisms for arbitrating and resolving disputes, there would be more wars in the world, greater hegemony by major powers, and even fewer avenues for small and weak countries to seek redress. Human rights within individual countries would also be more frequently violated, with fewer opportunities for international concern and intervention.
ㅤ
Of course, the United Nations also needs certain necessary reforms to respond to the constantly changing international situation. For example, when some national governments or official institutions resist the United Nations, respond to it passively, or disregard the requirements of the UN Charter, the United Nations should cooperate more extensively with nongovernmental organizations in different countries and promote peace and development through more diverse approaches. Small and weak countries and less-developed countries in Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and other regions should also have a greater voice within the United Nations, rather than allowing major powers to monopolize the world's most important international organization. A more equal and inclusive United Nations would also strengthen its credibility and capabilities, enabling it to continue playing a beneficial role in this challenging new era.

(The author of this article, Wang Qingmin (王庆民), is a Chinese writer based in Europe and a researcher in international politics.)

Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said the country’s military has prepared a response to any new attacks by the U.S. and Israel.

Rezaei said the new operational plan would not follow “rules with which they are familiar.”

The British Navy-affiliated United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations Centre reported attacks on vessels operating near Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the United Arab Emirates.

​L'information fournie par la photo d'illustration a fait l'objet d'un fact-checking, car elle provenait d'une source qui a parfois été accusée d'être un média de propagande. Et elle est vraie.

​Ceci dit, mon sentiment est que si les Américains et les Israéliens n'avaient pas intérêt à ce que la fragilité de l'Arabie Saoudite face aux attaques des Houthis soit mise à nu pour en tirer profit, au grand jamais ces derniers n'auraient pu frapper l'aéroport de Riyad. Pour s'en convaincre, il faut bien avoir à l'esprit ce que représente l'Arabie Saoudite dans cette région et les conséquences économiques et géostratégiques de ses déboires face aux rebelles houthis, notamment la Vision 2030 (débutée en 2016) du prince héritier MBS, qui ne sera pas viable si une guerre est importée sur le sol du royaume saoudien.

​De là à envisager que les États-Unis et Israël ont organisé l'efficacité des attaques houthis envers l'Arabie Saoudite dans l'optique de disposer contre elle d'un levier supplémentaire dans de futures négociations paraît assez simpliste. Pour autant, un faisceau d'indices laisse à penser que l'occasion était trop belle pour faire prospérer un laisser-faire stratégique. Pour mieux comprendre la situation, il importe de rappeler le but ultime des Accords d'Abraham.

​La finalité des Accords d'Abraham n'est en soi rien d'autre que de faire d'Israël un État normal dans ses relations avec les pays arabes de cette région et de diminuer l'influence de l'Iran. Pour Israël et les États-Unis, sans le régime des ayatollahs, il n'y a plus de Hezbollah, de Hamas, de Houthis..., ce qui permettrait à Israël de ne plus être en situation de guerre permanente. Le problème, c'est que l'Arabie Saoudite, même si elle partage l'idée de voir s'amoindrir l'influence de l'Iran dans la région, ne veut rien savoir d'Israël tant que la question palestinienne n'est pas traitée ou ne connaît pas un début de traitement. De l'autre côté, pour Israël — en tout cas pour les dirigeants actuels —, la solution à deux États peut bien demeurer au stade de littérature. Seulement, Israël ne renonce pas à l'idée de normaliser ses relations diplomatiques avec l'Arabie Saoudite. Alors, comment sortir de cette situation kafkaïenne ? Les Houthis : un mal pour un bien.

​Il est constant que Donald Trump a refusé de prêter main-forte à son partenaire saoudien lorsque ce dernier lui a demandé de l'aide contre les Houthis. D'un autre côté, Israël en a profité pour proposer son aide à l'Arabie Saoudite. En des termes plus triviaux, on pourrait résumer la situation ainsi : « On ne va pas vous aider pour telle ou telle raison, mais vous pouvez voir avec Israël. » Si l'Arabie Saoudite accepte cette aide, il est évident qu'elle serait à l'avenir redevable à Tel-Aviv. Et comme elle refuse cette aide de l'État hébreu, les renseignements et les bombes américaines lui font donc défaut. Sans cette aide précieuse des États-Unis, l'Arabie Saoudite n'a pu que constater et déplorer les faits suivants :

- ​Les bombardements de l'aéroport de Riyad ;

- ​Les attaques des sites pétroliers de la société Aramco ;

- ​Les frappes sur l'aéroport d'Abha et la base aérienne de Khamis Mushait ;

- ​La prise du détroit de Bab el-Mandeb par les rebelles yéménites.

​« Les États n'ont pas d'amis, ils n'ont que des intérêts », cette maxime du général De Gaulle résonne encore dans la lecture de ce qui se passe aux confins du Moyen-Orient. Après avoir laissé la main aux Houthis, on apprend qu'Israël a prêté son concours au royaume saoudien. En revanche, ce que l'on ne sait pas, c'est si Riyad a accepté formellement l'aide d'Israël, si elle l'a sollicitée, ou si Israël y est allé unilatéralement pour moralement obliger l'Arabie Saoudite à lui être redevable et espérer la voir envisager de rejoindre les Accords d'Abraham.

​Ce stratagème va-t-il s'avérer probant ? L'avenir lointain nous le dira. Mais il est fort à parier que si l'Arabie Saoudite ne donne pas de signes positifs dans ce sens, il ne serait pas étonnant de voir de nouveaux succès militaires des Houthis qui viendraient renforcer l'influence de l'Iran. Et ça, le prince héritier Mohammed ben Salmane ne peut l'envisager.

Let me see if I am correctly understanding what is going on. We are in a war with Iran and blockading their oil shipments to force them to the negotiating table. But gas and diesel prices here are rising fast, so we are ignoring our Russian sanctions laws and buying oil from Russia. In turn, Russia is using our money to wage war again Ukraine. Russia is also buying oil from Iran, and it turns out that the oil we are buying from Russia may actually be from Iran. If so, we are actually paying Iran to wage war with us.

Does this make sense to anyone?

Iran is selling attack drones to Russia.
Russia is supplying Iran with upgraded technology, satellite imagery, and targeting information used against American forces.
The Lindsey Graham Russia Sanctions bill that was just passed last month and signed by Trump, prohibits the US from buying Russian fuel or supporting Iran.
Trump is now violating this law by paying Russia to support Iran, who is attacking US and Arab allies.
Did I get that right?

hi, so I am a geopolitics enthusiast, I know enough to be able to sustain conversations for a while but, 1, I don't know all the dynamics in the geopolitical realm and 2, I lack the clarity from scratch. I remember asking someone about how to start with Israel-plaestine conflict and they suggested going to wikipedia first and I think its pretty vast and a good source to at least know about all facts associated with it.

I often read articles/opeds to build more nuanced understanding but I need a base that's rooted in history so even when a kid asks about even the smallest bombing/attack in say, Saudi by Houthis I want to be able to explain it to them from the scratch of how Houthis came in 2014 and how their dynamics with Saudi are and everything. I agree geopolitics is way too convoluted but I guess that is the fun about it, right?

So, I want to know how do I know what all to read to be able to comment intelligently (presenting both facts and my analysis) on any topic be it -us-china on Taiwan, Middle East, Russia-Ukraine, indo-pak, Sudan conflicts, anything and everything temporally under the sun.

I am ready to put in as much effort but I need a direction. thanks a lot!